Two-Year Clinical Evaluation of Class II Bulk Fill Composite Restorations

Document Type : Original Article


1 Ordu University, Faculty of Dentistry

2 Samsun Dental Health Center

3 Samsun Dental Health Center, Samsun

4 Restorative Dentistry, Göztepe Dental Health Center

5 Ordu University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry.


Background: Resin Composite materials are widely used in daily clinical dentistry because of their moderate cost compared with ceramics, easy placement, adequate esthetics, ability to bond with enamel and dentine, and physico-chemical properties. Bulk-fill composite materials were introduced to reduce chairside time. These materials have properties such as optimal bond strength, decreased polymerization shrinkage, and reduced cuspal deflection. This in-vivo study compared the clinical performance of three different class II resin composite restorations.

Methods: Seventy-one patients (41 females and 30 males) aged 20–43 years with at least three approximal caries were included in the present study. Two hundred twenty-three teeth with approximal caries were restored with two bulk-fill composites (Tetric-N Ceram Bulk fill [TEC], Filtek Bulk Fill [FB]) and a posterior resin composite (Gradia Direct Posterior [GDP]). Two experienced dentists clinically evaluated the restorations with a 5x magnification loupe using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline and at 24 months.

Results: The chi-square test was performed for statistical analysis. The cumulative retention rate for all restorations at 24 months was 90.5%. Retention loss was observed for three TEC (6.1%), four FB (8.2), and seven GDP (14%) restorations. There was no statistically significant difference among the three resin composite restoration groups in color match, marginal adaptation, surface roughness, marginal discoloration, anatomical form, and secondary caries criteria (P > 0.05).

Conclusion: Bulk-fill composite restorations in class II slot cavities have the same clinical results as traditional posterior composite restorations.


Main Subjects